Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 FSUPP2D 514 - Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Plunkett

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Plunkett’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2018

1 district · 1 state decisions

40199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Roso-Lino Beverage Distributors, Inc. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Manufacturing Co. v. A-1-A Corp. · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Bradley · 465 F. Supp. 1233 - Siedman v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. · Levine v. Bochner

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Unlike other reported cases finding irreparable harm to the securities firm, Prudential presented no evidence that Plunkett confiscated mailing lists, computer disks with confidential information on clients or any Prudential documents that could be used to Prudential’s detriment. It appears to the Court that Plunkett merely used his memory to contact former customers.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[w]hile certain facts may support Court-ordered protection of Prudential’s customer list, there is authority that an employee who merely recalls customer information from memory has not violated his employment agreement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.